515 F.Supp.3d 708
E.D. Mich.2021Background
- Tommy Jackson pleaded guilty in 2009 to: possession with intent to distribute >5g crack (Count 1), possession with intent to distribute <100g heroin (Count 2), possession of a firearm as a felon (Count 3), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) (Count 4).
- The court imposed concurrent 120-month terms on Counts 1–3 (reflecting a 10-year mandatory minimum for the crack conviction due to a prior drug conviction) and a consecutive 60-month term on Count 4, totaling 180 months.
- Jackson was designated a career offender under the Guidelines at sentencing, producing a much higher advisory range; the court varied down to the mandatory 120 months on the covered crack count.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) and the First Step Act §404 (2018) reduced and made retroactive statutory penalties for many crack offenses; Jackson filed a §404 motion seeking resentencing, arguing he is eligible and that his entire aggregate sentence should be reconsidered.
- The government concedes Jackson’s eligibility for resentencing on the covered crack count but opposes plenary resentencing of the aggregate sentence; the court found Jackson eligible and concluded it may, in its discretion, consider reduction of the aggregate sentence but must obtain updated information before deciding.
- The court granted the motion in part, ordered an updated presentence report from Probation, allowed briefing, and set deadlines; the motion for immediate consideration was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson is eligible for relief under the First Step Act §404 | Gov’t: concedes Jackson is eligible on Count 1 (covered offense) | Jackson: seeks relief under §404 and requests plenary resentencing of the aggregate sentence | Eligible: court finds Count 1 is a "covered offense" and Jackson may seek reduction under §404 |
| Whether the First Step Act requires plenary resentencing | Gov’t: Act does not authorize plenary resentencing; relief is limited | Jackson: seeks full resentencing of all counts (the "package") | Not required: Act does not mandate plenary resentencing, but it does not forbid courts from considering aggregate sentence reduction |
| Whether a court may reduce non-covered components of an aggregate sentence that includes a covered offense | Gov’t: urges non-covered counts remain unchanged | Jackson: asks court to consider entire sentence because covered count affects aggregate punishment | Court may consider aggregate sentence reduction in its discretion and must apply relevant factors (including §3553(a)) |
| What process/remedy should follow | Gov’t: urges denial or limited relief | Jackson: seeks immediate plenary resentencing and reduction | Grant in part: court orders updated presentence report, invites briefing, reserves decision on extent of reduction; immediate resentencing denied as unnecessary now |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (explaining Fair Sentencing Act's effect on crack penalties and retroactivity context)
- Beamus v. United States, 943 F.3d 789 (6th Cir.) (First Step Act eligibility turns on the statute of conviction; relief discretionary)
- Boulding v. United States, 960 F.3d 774 (6th Cir.) (eligibility under First Step Act depends on statute of conviction alone)
- Alexander v. United States, 951 F.3d 706 (6th Cir.) (First Step Act does not require plenary resentencing)
- Smith v. United States, 958 F.3d 494 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing §3582(c)(1)(B) reductions from plenary sentencing proceedings)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (limits on sentence reductions under §3582(c)(2) and role of Sentencing Commission policy statements)
- Havis v. United States, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir.) (attempt convictions do not qualify as predicate controlled-substance offenses for career-offender enhancements)
- Hudson v. United States, 967 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.) (district courts may consider reducing aggregate sentences that include both covered and non-covered offenses)
- Hegwood v. United States, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir.) (First Step Act does not mandate recalculation of Guidelines in every case; discretionary relief)